G. H. Mead's model of language and mind, while perhaps understandable at the time it was written, now seems inadequate. First, the research evidence strongly suggests that mental operations exist prior to language onset, conversation of gestures, or social interaction. Second, language is not just significant symbols; it requires syntax. Third, syntax seems to be part of our bioinheritance, that is, part of our presocial mind/brain-what Noam Chomsky has called our language faculty. Fourth, this means syntax probably is not learned (...) nor a social construction that is internalized as a cultural template. Fifth, this suggests a basic reversal of the prevailing model of symbolic interaction, mind, language, and perhaps the self as well, although there has not been the time or space to engage that topic here. Therefore, symbolic interaction may turn out to be a more Chomskyan than Meadian process. Given the bioinheritance of our mind/brain we are able to engage in symbolic interaction; it does not appear that symbolic interaction creates our mind or the basic computational algorithms of language. (shrink)

Art is a language. Art objects are therefore decipherable into more or less elaborated and restricted codes. These codes change with the relative solidarity of the community in which they are produced. The more solidary the group, the more restricted the code; the less solidary the community, the more elaborated the artistic codes they produce. In general, realism is a more elaborated code and abstraction a more restricted code, and accordingly more solidary communities should produce more abstract art and less (...) solidary groups should produce more realistic art. This theoretical relationship between artistic codes and group solidarity is captured in the idea of a "semantic equation" and is applied to changes in the styles of New York art from the 1940s through the mid 1980s. (shrink)

Most discussion about clinical care in clinical trials has concerned whether subjects’ care may be compromised by research procedures. The possibility that clinical researchers might give priority to helping their “patients” even if that required deviating from the imperatives of the research protocol has been largely ignored. We conducted an online survey of clinical researchers—including physicians, research nurses, and other research staff—to assess the ways in which clinical trials may be at risk for compromise due to clinical researchers’ attempting to (...) address the clinical needs of subjects. The survey covered recruitment, clinical management while in the trial, and termination decisions. It produced a 72% response rate, and the results showed significant biases. Almost 64% of respondents thought that researchers should deviate from the protocol to improve subjects’ care. Of the 52% of respondents who worked on a trial that prohibited using a medication that they believed to be in a subject’s best medical interest, over 28% reported giving the restricted medication at least once. Of the 69% of respondents who reported having had a patient ineligible to participate in a trial, but for whom they believed the trial would be beneficial, 22% recruited the patient anyway. And of the 36% who said one of their patients had met termination criteria but seemed to benefit medically from the trial, 9% reported that they kept the subject in the trial. These results show that the scientific validity of clinical trials may be compromised by researchers’ desire to act in subjects’ best medical interests. (shrink)